Labour councillor quits in row over facilities for trans people - The Times

[ReappearingWoman]

Anne Sinnot, Labour councillor (Cambridge) has resigned.

"Ann Sinnott stood down from Cambridge council claiming that the authority was treating women with contempt and was acting in “dereliction of the law”. She said a policy that resulted in single-sex facilities, such as toilets or changing rooms, being “abolished at a stroke” was undermining women’s rights and was a breach of the equality act."

I don't have a clicky link or share token. Hopefully someone else will add?

Julian Huppert, who used to be the City of Cambridge MP, posted this on his Facebook page. The comments have made me lose any last remains I had of faith in the Lib Dems

NotAnotherJaffaCake I came into this thread to post exactly the same thing It made me realise what a long way to go there is with this. Personally I wouldn't say the tide is turning yet, most people out there (including some of the most generally switched on people I know) don't have the first clue as to the issues here. If your only source on this is that pink news headline, it does look pretty bad.

Grim, isn’t it? I’ve already left another Facebook group (a community I had been part of for more than ten years) because of th abuse I got for pointing out how misogynistic the trans agenda is; can’t face it again.

It is not just women who suffer at the hands of Council’s breaking the law - parents of disabled children across the country struggle to get council’s to comply with the law. Cambridge spent over £350,000 on one particularly aggressive law firm over 4 years defending cases where parents had requested support for their children. Parents win 86% of casesgoing to Tribunal despite the council’s spending millions on legal fees.

Check out the Momentum tweets on this thread . They nearly had me

twitter.com/madigan_lily/status/1024307396842323968

And if you consistently type in Transgender and news into 'Google' the stories are always buried way down beneath lots of pro TRA stories. The Times article doesn't even make the front page - it was the same with the Dress Badly one in The Mail the other day.
I don't know.....it's almost as if we're being silenced.
Meh! Call me paranoid eh?

Wowsers...

JessBradleysInvisibleCock, that's flown right under someone's radar, hasn't it? A thing of beauty.

Those Lily Madigan tweets - is ‘Compliance’ an actual bureau within the Labour Party? Momentum reply to LM that Compliance needs better staffing. WTAF?

Orwell. Orwell Orwell Orwell every flipping tune.

MacaroonMama

Ho ho! Madigan gets played here:

twitter.com/madigan_lily/status/1024307396842323968

That momentum account is brilliant. Lily really isn't very bright. Maybe that's because of the lady brain...

LONG POST WARNING - FEEL FREE TO SCROLL BY

@Bowlofbabelfish I haven't replied since early afternoon as I've been at work and then helping a couple of my kids with applications for part-time jobs.

And, I've also been trying to read up around the EQ Act 2010. It's a huge document with lots of explanatory notes and other supporting documents and I don't think I'm going to get through it all very quickly.

I need to understand what the intentions of the EQ Act are before I offer an answer to your questions.

In one of the supporting documents I've come across, published by the W&E Committee in parliament in 2016 is 'Transgender Equality': publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf

One of the statements of interpretation of the EQ Act I've got to in there states:
132. Significant concerns have been raised with us regarding the provisions of the Equality Act concerned with separate-sex and single-sex services and the genuine occupational requirement as these relate to trans people. These are sensitive areas, where there does need to be some limited ability to exercise discretion, if this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. However, we are not persuaded that this discretion should apply where a trans person has been recognised as of their acquired gender “for all legal purposes” under the Gender Recognition Act. In many instances this is unlikely, in any case, to meet the proportionate test. We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

Now if under proposed Self-ID if we lose the faceless medical panel and just have to supply our two diagnosis letters and documents to prove we've been 'living in role' [this is not my term] then only people diagnosed with GD would be able to Self-ID - but the process would be easier and cheaper for those people. And the diagnoses should only be accepted from a regularly updated list of NHS GIC or private gender specialists or from recognised international specialists.

If Self-ID is lighter than that and the medical diagnosis of GD goes then yes, I share your concerns of floodgates potentially opening.

Mods - this post might be off-topic but trying to come to an answer to questions posed to me. If it should be in a GRA thread let me know.

Tee hee. That momentum account.

Some people take themselves far too seriously.

I thought the Monentum account was real 😂😂😂

It is not just women who suffer at the hands of Council’s breaking the law - parents of disabled children across the country struggle to get council’s to comply with the law. Cambridge spent over £350,000 on one particularly aggressive law firm over 4 years defending cases where parents had requested support for their children. Parents win 86% of casesgoing to Tribunal despite the council’s spending millions on legal fees.

Seriously? What is going on in Cambridge?

Those Momentum tweets are beautifully done

We recommend that the Equality Act be amended so that the occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply in relation to discrimination against a person whose acquired gender has been recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The government rejected this recommendation which pissed Miller off.

Jacky Any chance of screen shots please? Am blocked by most of the TRAs. Must be something I said.

Ann Sinnott is a wonderful woman. She does gain freedom to speak out and I think she has been wanting to for some time now. We need more people like Ann.

Pretty please share screen shots; I, along with many others, am banned so can't see ridiculous tweets!

Snap!

Cambridge is the new West Yorkshire. Fact.

I will set up a top secret dodgy dossier on Cambridge.

Stephen Fry went there for a start. Which is utterly damning.

And the Lib Dem TTTT Twitter account is in Cambridge.

You know me, I will do my absolute best to implicate Jess Bradley/Free Willy in the Cambridge Cabal but I can't promise anything at this point.

trying thanks for the spiel. But I asked why you’re happy one protected category was removed.

Why?

Screenshot

Thanks trying that is helpful and interesting.

he protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" refers specifically to "transsexuals" [see Section 7]. Nowhere in the Equality Act 2010 is the word "transgender" used, or "gender identity" or "gender expression". None of these terms have any meaning in UK law. So, cross dressers, transvestites, autogynephiles etc do not have any legal licence to use any female facilities anywhere. The trans lobby is deliberately misleading everyone

Thanks Jacky. This is valuable information and I will remember and use this.